5 and 95% of Planned Gifts in Canada and so bequest potential defines most of the Planned 61994 that investigated various aspects of Planned Giving. Each surveyed 5000 members Giving potential. and had a statistical reliability of plus or minus (+or-) 3%, 19 times out of 20. The United Church of Canada has 700,000 members across Canada and represents a good cross The United Church of Canada did two independent research studies in 1993section of English speaking Canadians. A question repeated in both research projects was

“Would you consider a Planned Gift of …” (each was described to respondents and

multiples were allowed). The results were:

Bequest Charitable Gift Annuity Life Insurance Charitable Remainder

Trust

Survey #1 40% 16% 10% 10%

Survey #2 41% 15% 11% N/A

In Survey #2, responses were also cross-tabulated by type of member. Church leadership

(volunteers in leadership positions and staff) responded with Planned Gift intentions of

close to double that of the membership as a whole.

All of the research results described above lead to some very important

conclusions. Willingness to consider making planned gift commitments is widespread in

the Canadian population. Furthermore, volunteers and those closest to the organization

are even more likely to make a gift from their assets. There is tremendous potential for all

types of Planned Gifts, for Canadian charities.

In 1992 the National Committee on Planned Giving (NCPG) in the United States,

randomly surveyed7 150,000 Americans and followed up with a detailed questionnaire to

those that had made a Planned Gift. Some notable findings were:

?5.71% of Americans had included a Planned Gift to a charity

?As many under the age of 60 had made a bequest commitment as above (Note:

similar results were recorded in the United Church survey)

?75% of bequest donors had never informed the charity of their intentions

?64% of bequest intentions were less than five years old

?37% of bequest donors benefited more than one charity

?92% of bequest donors had never changed the bequest provision once it was in the

paramount with a Planned Gift – scored relatively low as a motivational factor. Also, the bequest goal was clearly understood to be to get the bequest in the will where it will

generally stay!

This cursory review of known market research describes a different potential

market than perhaps was first assumed – a broad market, a diverse market, a responsive market for all those who value a particular charitable cause. Does the traditional Planned

Giving Marketing model fit this market?

Traditional Planned Giving Marketing Model

We have learned and taught a particular Planned Giving marketing model. It

requires a charitable organization to communicate to its supporters and affiliates with an

offer, to begin a Planned Giving dialogue. This general offer can take various forms, such

as:

?a response mechanism to “get more information”

?a response mechanism to signal “interest in making a Planned Gift”

?an opportunity to learn about “Estate Planning” through print or seminars in

which Planned Giving is used as an example

?an opportunity to get professional advice on “tax planning”

?information on Planned Giving recognition, etc.

This reactive marketing communication model will typically enjoy response rates in the

0.1% to 1.0% range. Then, these respondents move into a long range cultivation program

that educates them on Planned Giving options, motivates them by presenting testimonials

and recognition benefits and builds relationship with notably, the Planned Giving officer,

and in turn, the charitable organization, through a deliberate contact program. Of this

respondent group, 25% to 50% will eventually make a Planned Gift commitment over

time.

These Planned Gifts tend to be larger than those received „out of the blue‟ (almost always bequests) and sometimes, quite complex. The Planned Giving officer gets to

display his or her knowledge of the subject by analyzing the donors circumstances and

5

philanthropic goals and proposing the most appropriate Planned Giving option, often

working with the donor‟s advisors. This is the typical marketing model.

There are some exceptions to this model. Some charities successfully „product

market‟ individual gift options especially life income gifts such as charitable gift

annuities and charitable remainder trusts. These communication programs work best

when the dual benefit is explained to prospective donors – a gift to the organization they care about and an opportunity for tax beneficial lifetime income at the same time. The 8 by product marketing them to their communicated offer usually has the incentive to get a “quotation” on the amount of

membership. “income” or “taxable benefit” that the donor will receive. Response and conversion rates

are the same as the general offer above. Some religious organizations have built the

However, the overall limitations of the traditional Planned Giving Marketing marketing of gift annuities into a thriving business

model are obvious. It requires individuals to „self-identify‟ to the charitable organization

in a reactive fashion. Individuals metaphorically, must raise their hands and shout “here I

am” to engage in any Planned Giving dialogue. Consequently, overall response rates are

in the 0.05% to 0.5% range (0.1% to 1% x 50%). These traditionally marketed programs

tend to work well in universities and religious organizations where there are large

members of constituents who have been cultivated through alumni programs or long term

church membership. This traditional model has been dubbed the „University Model‟

because it works best in that market environment and is usually taught to the industry by

Planned Giving practitioners who have worked in universities. The model does not work

well in broad based national charities, nor in hospitals, arts organizations (with some rare

through specific steps in making a Planned Gift commitment and the Gift Planner‟s job is

to facilitate this movement. The steps for the donor are:

1.Buy-in to the mission of the organization,

2.Having a clear understanding of the future needs of the organization and a willingness

to support those needs,

3.Being clear that a Planned Gift in its simplest form, is a gift from assets after death,

4.Being aware of the capability of making the gift, i.e., that the necessary assets are

available,

5.Consulting with family/advisors, to get their support for the gift,

6.Being clearly asked for the gift,

7.Having objections thoroughly answered,

8.Being thanked and recognized,

And then the cycle recommences for a second Planned Gift. Not all donors will go

through all the steps but any marketing program must allow for and complement the

complete cycle.

Furthermore, the Planned Gift decision should always begin with a bequest offer

by the charity except for special „product marketing‟ programs. The bequest is the easiest

gift to understand and is a pure gift from assets. More importantly, it is the gift that 34%

of the population is predisposed to make. After the bequest intention is made the

charitable organization should make offers of age-appropriate irrevocable gifts – life

insurance for younger donors, life-income gifts for older. The bequest decision should be 10 has developed a decision considered a five to ten year time period because the goal is from the charity‟s tree for bequest intentions, ultimately facilitating inclusion in the will. From most perspective, to get the bequest in the will! Legacy Leaders Inc.developed to least developed, this bequest decision tree is:

Bequest intentions fall into one of these categories of decision. As much as charities

would like a simple, fully confirmed bequest inclusion, in reality, individuals must move

up this tree in a time frame of up to ten years. It is then incumbent on charitable

organizations to support both the Planned Gift decision cycle and the long term bequest

decision tree with sophisticated stewardship programs that take all of this into account.

These programs must have four basic components:

1.Contact strategy building relationship and dialogue

2.Education strategy giving the donor the necessary information to move their

decision along – information both about the Planned Gift and about the

organization

3.Solicitation strategy that has a monitoring component to ascertain decision

movement and a hard „ask‟ component that moves the donor to a higher level

4.Re-solicitation for multiple, irrevocable and larger gifts over time

Recognition is successfully used as a motivator to move donors to the „confirmed‟ levels of decision.

With the knowledge of how the Planned Gift decision is made, let‟s look at a Marketing model that will be successful for all charitable and not-for-profit organizations.

A Fresh Way to Market A Planned Giving Program

Any fresh approach to Planned Giving marketing must build on both the research

available and knowledge of the Decision Cycle described previously.

?A clear, strong Case for Support will respond to the motivational need to support the

charitable cause.

?A broad-based program will speak to all supporters and affiliates to make the most of

the potential available.

?The program will be proactive in engaging the Planned Giving dialogue because it is

known that comparatively few supporters will self-identify.

?It must take a long term perspective (five to ten years) to obtain „hard‟ commitment

and even longer to move to irrevocable, larger and complex gifts (bequests are of

course, revocable).

?The program will be more like a capital/major gift campaign with a theme, high

visibility and a clear start and finish time.

?It will be measurable with defined, periodic goals.

?The „new‟ Planned Giving model will be built on market segmentation similar to a

capital/major gift campaign.

Recent work by Legacy Leaders Inc. and use of the United Church of Canada 11 has shown that response to a Planned Giving request for commitment varies by researchthe closeness of relationship to the charity. Legacy Leaders campaigns for hospitals have

11 United Church of Canada, Department of Stewardship Services, Unitrends, (Toronto, Canada, 1994).

8

resulted in the following response rates of those who have made a Planned Gift commitment :

Segment Response Rate of the Segment

Volunteers 11%

One-time large donors 10.5%

($250 to $1,000)

Patients (not made a financial gift) 10.3%

Patients (having made a financial gift) 10.0%

Consistent, small donors 9.5%

(four years, over $25)

Current year donors 9.2%

Lapsed one year donors 7.5%

Lapsed two year donors 5.0%

The NCPG research (1993) also gave insight into the Planned Gift donor

relationship by asking them to describe their affiliation with the charity. They responded:

Members 39.4%

Personally benefited them 24.1%

Volunteer 15.8%

Alumnus 15.6%

Through friend/family 9.2%

Neighbour, community resident 7.9%

Church, religious affiliation 5.8%

Director/Trustee 4.8%

Like the cause 4.2%

Employee 3.0%

Past Contributor 0.3%

These various studies all describe a relationship matrix moving from the centre to

the periphery; the closer one is in relationship to a charitable cause or organization, then the more likely the individual is to making a Planned Gift commitment. This is the same model as the capital/major gift campaign but Planned Giving models do not usually operate this way. A „fresh‟ approach must do this. A corollary is that different relationship segments must be engaged in dialogues of differing quality. Also, supporting resources (brochures, mail packages, phone calls, visits), must differ for the different dialogues. The nature of the dialogue will define what resources are required.

With this previously described research in mind, we can now formulate a Planned

Giving marketing model applicable to all charities and not-for-profit organizations.

9

A New Planned Giving Marketing Model

(i)Case for Support:

The Case for Support for a Planned Giving campaign should be:

?Emotional and compelling,

?Clear as possible as to the final use of the gift (a challenge for deferred

Planned Gifts),

?Fully compatible with the mission of the organization,

?Logical extension of that mission into a ten to sixty year future,

?Work inter-generationally because most gifts will only be utilized by future

generations,

?Allow individuals/families to leave a legacy, a mark towards something they

care about.

This developed Case for Support must be the foundation of every donor dialogue – it

encompasses both the mission and future needs steps in the Decision Cycle. Supporters

expect their charities to be bold and visionary for the future. Some examples:

“With a gift from your assets, you can help ensure the best health care in the

world, for your community, your children and their children.”

“Your planned gift with many others like you, will significantly change the lives